This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: OpenMP licensing problem: a solution
- From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- To: Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>
- Cc: Biagio Lucini <lucini at phys dot ethz dot ch>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gomp at nongnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:47:43 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: OpenMP licensing problem: a solution
- References: <200411230916.36569.lucini@phys.ethz.ch><D17D35C7-33A7-4DD0-B889-7920EFDC942C@apple.com>
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Mike Stump wrote:
On Nov 23, 2004, at 12:16 AM, Biagio Lucini wrote:
I have made an enquiry to the OpenMP ARB, appended is the answer I
received.
My understanding of the meaning of "public domain" is that we are free to
put the code under GPL+exceptions.
My take, I think their email reply is evidence that they have no clue
what-so-ever. I'd suggest that you ask them a yes or no question, and that
you accept no another answer other than yes or no. Now, as to the question,
can I do X, where X is all the code that you think might infringe. Also,
bear in mind, what the person says has no legal weight, if they person you
are talking to has no legal standing.
It's never a good idea to make assumptions about what principles the law
follows :).
In this case, what you've said isn't necessarily or even usually true.
Take a gander at the law of agency, in particular the principle of
"apparent authority" (and also the principles of various forms
of estoppel). Of course, you'd end up in court in this case, which you'd
want to avoid, but you don't get to hold yourself out and give legal
answers on behalf of your employer without any consequences :).
Which brings us to the part where i say this isn't legal advice, doesn't
represent IBM, blah, blah, blah, blah :)
--Dan